[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] FW: [link draft] Changing the model for links
I think at most, the link spec will call out the existing deployment of alternate with a few other rels and deprecate this practice. If anyone wants to create combinations, they should just define new rel types. Even media types based on +xml or +json still needs to be individually registered, so that is the common practice here. Since <Rel> does not old multiple values, we do not have a way to express this combination in XRD anyway. Separate <Rel>s are semantically equivalent to: Link: <a>; rel="a"; rel="b" Which does not fall under the HTML4 issue. So for us it is simply a matter of not being able to express this use case (which is a good thing). EHL On 4/9/09 5:02 AM, "Barnhill, William [USA]" <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote: > Could both camps be accommodated by saying that you have a special rel, say > '*' which ties together the rel preceding it and the rel following it (e.g. > rel="stylesheet * alternate")? > > Means extra work on those of us who having been using rel="x y" to always mean > 2 relationships, but at least it's distinguishable as one relationship and you > could check for presence of '*' relationship and not process special if it > didn't exist. Other benefit is that such relationships can be represented as > stylesheet*alternate xri subsegment. > > Someone would need to sell the HTML5 guys on the need though, but given this > may break several microformat mash-ups I wouldn't think it would be a tough > sell. > > =Bill.Barnhill > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 1:59 AM > To: 'Eran Hammer-Lahav'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] FW: [link draft] Changing the model for links > > Man, this is a mess. It appears the whole root of the problem (which you can > see at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#specifying-external) > is that HTML 4 decided to create their own "keyword modifier" for values of > the rel= attribute in links. So you can insert the word "alternate" in front > of "stylesheet" (separated by a space, i.e., rel="alternate stylesheet") to > designate that it is an alternate stylesheet. > > > > By coming up with their own semantics for how two independent strings modify > each other as values of the rel attribute, they screwed up everyone else who > would simply want it to be able to contain multiple values. > > > > What were they THINKING???? It completely blows the regularity and elegance > of the architecture. > > > > I don't know about anyone else, but I feel they have set such a bad > precedent here that I don't think we or anyone else should be obliged to > follow it. I think we should stick to the rel attribute accepting multiple > space-delimited values, and just accept that if certain of those values have > a relationship to certain other of those values, that's application > specific. > > > > Otherwise we'd end out completely screwing up the link model (and XRD 1.0 > architecture that is based on it) to accommodate somebody else's bad > decision. > > > > I propose we make this the lead (and maybe only) topic on tomorrow's XRI TC > telecon because it's so important to get this feedback in now. > > > > =Drummond > > > > _____ > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:39 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xri] FW: [link draft] Changing the model for links > > > > I forgot to mention this discussion is taking place on the HTTP list > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > > EHL > > > On 4/8/09 8:22 AM, "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote: > > This will have significant impact on XRD. Please read. > > EHL > > > ------ Forwarded Message > > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:21:34 -0700 > To: <www-tag@w3.org> > Subject: Fwd: [link draft] Changing the model for links > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org >> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> >> Date: 8 April 2009 9:10:58 AM >> To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >> Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >> Subject: [link draft] Changing the model for links >> Archived-At: > <http://www.w3.org/mid/C1CD0848-13F0-4FCF-91FF-52126622C3B8@mnot.net >>> >> >> I've been discussing the link draft with Ian Hickson, who points out >> that in HTML4, there's a difference between >> >> <link rel="stylesheet" href="a"/> >> <link rel="stylesheet alternate" href="a"/> >> >> and >> >> <link rel="stylesheet alternate" href="a/> >> >> (see <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html#specifying-external > >>> for the background of why these are different) >> >> In the current link draft, there isn't any way to express the >> difference between these; the underlying model is >> >> [ context ] ---[ relation type ]---> [ target ] >> >> where 'relation type' is singular. >> >> To accommodate this use, the model would need to be something like >> >> [ context ] ---[ list of relation types ]---> [ target ] >> >> noting that there may be more than one list of relation types >> between any context and target. >> >> Personally, I think that it would be only in pathological cases that >> it would be necessary to know the difference between the two (i.e., >> real world Web pages will not point to a URI as both a stylesheet >> and as an alternate for themselves, so it's safe to say that even >> the first example above means that "a" is an alternate stylesheet). >> >> However, it is important for Link to interoperate well with HTML4. >> Also, the HTML5 folks plan to use this model for other purposes >> (e.g., "up up" to indicate a parent of a parent). >> >> The practical impact of making this change is that serialisations of >> links won't be able to collapse multiple relation types between two >> URIs into one link; they'll have to be separate to allow this >> interpretation. >> >> So, for example, if you have link types ['w', 'x', 'y z'] between A >> and B, it will have to be serialised as >> >> Link: <B>; rel="w" >> Link: <B>; rel="x" >> Link: <B>; rel="y z" >> >> in HTTP headers, NOT >> >> Link: <B>; rel="w x y z" >> >> because that's ambiguous. >> >> The alternative is to say that the 'stylesheet alternate' >> combination isn't specific to how it's serialised, but is tied to >> the occurrence of the links. I.e., when both relations are present >> in links between the same resources, these special semantics take >> affect. However, this does seem to directly conflict with the HTML4 >> language (see link above), so I don't think doing so is viable. >> >> Comments? >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]